SynthesisPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.
Synthesis in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Horizon scanning of potential environmental applications of terrestrial animals, fish, algae and microorganisms produced by genetic modification, including the use of new genomic techniques.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Pooled it
- Bioethics of somatic gene therapy: what do we know so far?Current medical research and opinion · 2023Pooled it
- What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Pooled it
- Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons.BMC medical ethics · 2021Pooled it
- Ethical arguments concerning human-animal chimera research: a systematic review.BMC medical ethics · 2020Pooled it
- Animal models in human surgery and implant innovation: ethical considerations and scientific advancements.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- AI-enhanced marker-assisted selection concept for the multifunctional honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidea) protein Vitellogenin (Vg).Journal of economic entomology · 2025Article
- Governance Perspectives on Genetically Modified Animals for Agriculture and Aquaculture: Challenges for the Assessment of Environmental Risks and Broader Societal Concerns.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Organoids in parasitology: a game-changer for studying host-nematode interactions.Parasitology · 2025Review
- The case for computational and artificial intelligence-based approaches for sustainable functional food systems for sub-Saharan Africa.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Exploring the landscape of public attitudes towards gene-edited foods in Japan.Breeding science · 2024Article
- Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Article
- Worldviews, values and perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector.Agriculture and human values · 2024Article
- Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology.PloS one · 2023Article
- The African continent should consider a harmonized consultative and collaborative effort towards coordinated policy and regulatory guidelines across the fields of biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023Article
- Modeling suggests gene editing combined with vaccination could eliminate a persistent disease in livestock.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective.Transgenic research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.